Recipients of honors in the United Kingdom could have their awards revoked if they are deemed to have posted 'offensive' comments online, according to new official guidance. The forfeiture committee, which operates in secrecy and reviews complaints against honors holders, can now consider 'hate incidents' as grounds for action.
A 'hate incident' is defined as an act where the victim or another person believes it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on disability, race, religion, transgender identity, or sexual orientation. This guidance raises the possibility of individuals losing honors ranging from MBEs to knighthoods for remarks that cause offense, even if those remarks do not constitute a legal offense.
Lord Young of Acton, founder and general secretary of the Free Speech Union, expressed concern that the move might deter future recipients from accepting honors. "If people know their honors could be withdrawn if they say something politically contentious that the committee disagrees with, even if it's a perfectly legal, mainstream view, anyone Right of centre will think twice about accepting one in future," he stated.
The guidance, reported by The Sunday Telegraph, emphasizes that the committee's primary consideration is whether the individual's actions or inactions have "brought the honors system into disrepute." The severity of a post may also be judged based on the platform and audience, with a public post by a high-profile recipient on an open account considered more serious than a similar post from a private account with a small number of followers.
This new guidance may apply to 'hate incidents' that cannot be prosecuted, meaning comments that do not amount to criminal conduct. The Free Speech Union has criticized the criteria for withdrawing awards as "far too broad."
The existence of this guidance came to light after homelessness campaigner Nick Buckley MBE, who received an MBE for his charity work, made a Freedom of Information request. The committee had previously investigated Mr. Buckley regarding social media comments it deemed "beyond political comment" and potentially damaging to the honors system's reputation. Mr. Buckley was permitted to retain his award.
Mr. Buckley argued that without a transparent policy, all honor-holders might feel inhibited from expressing their beliefs for fear of jeopardizing their awards. The Cabinet Office has declined to comment on the matter.
Separately, a report by campaign group Big Brother Watch is set to reveal that over 60,000 people have been arrested in the UK over the past five years for 'communications offences,' many related to social media posts. Of these arrests, 18,510 resulted in charges and 12,292 in convictions. The report suggests that while some arrests are justifiable, the broad scope of these laws has led to overzealous policing.
The report highlights cases such as West Midlands Police visiting a teenage girl over a TikTok post, and Lucy Connolly being jailed for calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire. Toby Young of the Free Speech Union stated that the high number of arrests for online offenses, with a low conviction rate, creates a "chilling effect on free speech."
Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, has called for an independent review of laws and police training related to speech.